Modeling Above-Ground Carbon Dynamics under Different Silvicultural Treatments on the McDonald–Dunn Research Forest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe submitted manuscript is a solid modeling exercise.
I have only some minor remarks:
Abstract:
Not all readers may be familiar with the meaning of 'Site Class I, II, ..'. In the abstract it may be suitable to use a more general terminology ('low productivity site, ...').
The Introduction is a basic description of forest interventions. Shortening is possible, but this point is not critical.
Chapter 2.3 Stand selection
which unit is used for elevation?
Chapter 2.4 : I recommend avoiding abbreviations in chapter titles.
Chapter 4.2:
in item 3 a word is missing; I assume it is 'high-intensity thinning'.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Our responses to the comments are listed below:
Reviewer 1:
The submitted manuscript is a solid modeling exercise.
I have only some minor remarks:
Abstract:
Not all readers may be familiar with the meaning of 'Site Class I, II, ..'. In the abstract it may be suitable to use a more general terminology ('low productivity site, ...').
Response: Done
The Introduction is a basic description of forest interventions. Shortening is possible, but this point is not critical.
Response: Done
Chapter 2.3 Stand selection
which unit is used for elevation?
Response: Done
Chapter 2.4: I recommend avoiding abbreviations in chapter titles.
Response: Done
Chapter 4.2:
in item 3, a word is missing; I assume it is 'high-intensity thinning'.
Response: Done
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is interesting, has a novelty, and useful for decision-making stakeholders. The article has been prepared quite well, but a few things need to be improved:
Lines 130-138: Research objectives should be stated more emphatically and clearly without conveying the parts of the method.
L 140: Please add a map of the study area showing your plot position.
- Each stage of the method presented should be accompanied by at least a citation. Sufficient references can help to support the research methodology and provide evidence for the findings.
L 141, 144, 254, 429, 435, 437, 438, etc.: SI Units (International System of Units) should be used.
L 197: Authors should have explained ORGANON
L 449: Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract, the main text, and the first figure or table.
- The method presented is still unclear. Using a flow chart will help readers better understand your research steps.
- The model used for growth projection/simulation and C sequestration should have been tested/validated using actual data.
- Most of the references used are >10 years old. Please try to replace them with something more up-to-date.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language is required.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
This paper is interesting, has a novelty, and useful for decision-making stakeholders. The article has been prepared quite well, but a few things need to be improved:
Response:
Lines 130-138: Research objectives should be stated more emphatically and clearly without conveying the parts of the method.
Response: Addressed
L 140: Please add a map of the study area showing your plot position.
Response: Done
- Each stage of the method presented should be accompanied by at least a citation. Sufficient references can help to support the research methodology and provide evidence for the findings.
Response: we haved included citations in the methods section.
L 141, 144, 254, 429, 435, 437, 438, etc.: SI Units (International System of Units) should be used.
Response: We have now used SI units, as suggested.
L 197: Authors should have explained ORGANON
Response: Done
L 449: Abbreviations should be defined the first time they appear in each of three sections: the abstract, the main text, and the first figure or table
Response: Done
- The method presented is still unclear. Using a flow chart will help readers better understand your research steps.
Response: We have revised the method section and added a flow chart.
- The model used for growth projection/simulation and C sequestration should have been tested/validated using actual data.
Response: While we agree with the need to validate “growth projection/simulation and C sequestration” using actual data, there is no historical data to validate the model and its projections under operational settings or as was done in the manuscript. We note that the models used in the study are validated and approved for use in Carbon projects in the Pacific Northwest.
- Most of the references used are >10 years old. Please try to replace them with something more up-to-date.
Response: Thank you for mentioning that. We have included new references.
Comments on the Quality of English Language: Minor editing of English language is required.
Response: We have revised the text and improved the manuscript's readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
